The Sin of Needing a Sign

I have often been asked if I have any evidence of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, as if somehow physical or tangible proof is the best way to prove such things.  While I do have many credible tangible reasons for believing, I rely more on my witness from God through the power of the Holy Ghost than by any other means.  This is the proper way of things.  In the Book of Mormon we are taught;

17 Yea, there are many who do say: If thou wilt show unto us a^asign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe.

 18 Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to ^abelieve, for he knoweth it.

 19 And now, how much ^amore ^bcursed is he that ^cknoweth the^dwill of God and doeth it not, than he that only believeth, or only hath cause to believe, and falleth into ^etransgression?

 21 And now as I said concerning faith—^afaith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye ^bhope for things which are ^cnot seen, which are true.

These verses from Alma 32 show that needing signs before belief is not only an unwise path to follow, but can also bring greater condemnation if the sign is not followed.  

In Matthew 16 in the New Testament we read;

4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.

Wicked people seek after a sign before they will believe.  They are also the first to disbelieve once they have received a sign! (aren't things ironic?)  We learn of this truth in 3 Nephi in the Book of Mormon

 1 And it came to pass that thus passed away the ninety and fifth year also, and the people began to forget those ^asigns and wonders which they had heard, and began to be less and less astonished at a sign or a wonder from heaven, insomuch that they began to be hard in their hearts, and blind in their minds, and began to disbelieve all which they had heard and seen—

 2 ^aImagining up some vain thing in their hearts, that it was wrought by men and by the power of the devil, to lead away and^bdeceive the hearts of the people; and thus did Satan get possession of the hearts of the people again, insomuch that he did blind their eyes and lead them away to believe that the doctrine of Christ was a ^cfoolish and a vain thing.

Requiring a sign before belief is probably the worst way to try and gain a witness of the truth.  

My experience and testimony is that God places a premium on belief without a sign more than on belief with having received a sign.  Perhaps this seems backwards to some, but scriptural evidence confirms this fact.  John 20 in the New Testament shows this;

29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast ^aseen me, thou hast believed: ^bblessed are they that have not seen, and yet have ^cbelieved.

I don't know why this is the way of things, I only know it is true.  It is how I received my witness.  I believed and did everything I was taught that I should do, and it wasn't until after that period of testing that I received a witness from God.  But I now have this witness and I will do all I can to be faithful to it.  

Conversation With a Pastor (Part 7)

The last time wrote I posted a short email that I had sent to the the Pastor.  I didn't get a response from him in the interim but I did write him a longer response to many of his questions.  He wanted to know what I believed about Jesus Christ and he wanted to know why a restoration and prophets in our day were necessary.  He wasn't that tactful about it but I didn't expect him to be.  The necessity of a Restoration and of modern day prophets completely undermines his interpretation of the Bible as well as the church he started without direct face to face revelation from God.  

The response that follows was given in very direct words.  I explained my belief in the divinity and Godship of Jesus Christ as well as the reason a restoration was necessary.  

_______

Pastor S,

In your previous message to me you mentioned a couple of things that you wanted me to expound upon; namely the deity of Jesus Christ as well as the need for a restoration of the Gospel.  

This is my personal testimony of Jesus Christ.

I know that Jesus Christ was the first born spirit child of Heavenly Father.  He is the creator of the universe and everything therein.  He created the Earth under the direction of his Father and was chosen to be the Savior of Mankind before the Earth was even created.  I know that he came to earth as the babe born in Bethlehem of Judea and lived in very humble and meek circumstances, yet he grew in favor with God and with man.  He lived a perfect life of service and love, never once sinning or going amiss of his Father's will.  I know that on a terrible night he worked out the Infinite Atonement, which is the means whereby redemption and resurrection can come to the entire human family.  He suffered in the Garden of Gethsemanie and bled from every pore because of the burden he had to bear.  I know that he felt the pains, sickness and infirmities of the entire human family and that he did this so that he might know how to succor us in our afflictions.  I know that he suffered the pain and paid the price for the sins of all mankind, that we might repent and be found clean from the stains of this world.  I know that he was lifted up upon the cross and suffered unimaginable pain, yet I know that he did it willingly, according to the will of the Father.  I know that he was resurrected on the third day and is now a glorified and perfect being with a body of flesh and bones.  He was the first fruit of those who slept and all shall rise like he did.  I know that he ascended into heaven to take his place on the right hand of the Father, and that he is clothed with glory and perfection.  He is the Lord of the Universe and will forever be our God.  

I hope that my words helped to express at least some of how I feel about the Lord.  Words do not do justice to the feelings of my heart, however.  Yet I hope they will suffice.  

Regarding the restoration of the gospel, I must say that I appreciate the way you worded your question.  It helped me to understand what you currently know about Mormon beliefs.  From what you said you seem to believe that Mormons think that the prophets in the Bible somehow "got it wrong."  I want to clear up the matter and say that we do not believe that.  At all.  We do not believe any of the prophets got it wrong.  In fact, they are what kept things right for so long!  Were it not for all of the prophets the work of the Lord would have had a rather difficult time getting off the ground.  If Adam were not a prophet then he would not have been able to converse with the Lord and know how to keep the commandments.  He wouldn't have known what commandments even were.  If it were not for Noah being a prophet then the entire population of the earth (including noah and the other seven people on the ark) would have been wiped out in the flood, because how would they know about its coming except by being warned by the Lord?  Were it not for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob being prophets then we would have missed out on an infinite number of blessings that have come through their posterity.  Were it not for Moses the Lord's covenant people would have remained in bondage in Egypt because they would have not have been led out by a prophet of the Lord.  In fact, the Bible explicitly states, "surely the Lord, God, will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." (Amos 3:7)  Prophets are the way that the Lord has always and will always communicate to his people upon the earth.  So, to be clear, Mormons reverence the prophets of the Bible and in no case have we ever claimed that they "got it wrong."  

The problem that seems to always come up, however, is the disobedience of the people whom the prophets are trying to lead.  This is an undeniable fact.  People have the ability to choose.  They can follow the counsel of the prophet or they can ignore it.  If they ignore it then there are usually pretty severe consequences (like in the case of the Flood) and this is where the problems come into play.  God has a perfect plan, but people are not perfect.  It must be terribly frustrating to God to have only imperfect people to work with, but he makes it work because he is all powerful and because he loves us.  So, even when people mess up (whether individually or as a whole) the Lord brings prophets into play to try and get the people back on track.  This is a very easy thing to see in the Bible.  It is also easy to see a pattern emerging and Mormons call these "dispensations."  Adam as a prophet was the first dispensation, Noah was another, Moses was yet another, and so on.  If God's plan was to only ever use the teachings of one prophet and never call new ones then we would only have the teachings of Adam and that would be (apparently) sufficient for salvation.  However, this is not the case at all and hopefully you can now see why prophets are vital to forwarding the work of the Lord.  

At this point I would bet that you are following the logic of this and aren't in total disagreement with it.  However, the part that will probably hold you up is when Jesus comes to the Earth.  For most protestants that event is the apparent end of prophets coming to the Earth, notwithstanding the fact that Jesus called many others (including the 12 Apostles) to carry on the work once he was gone.  I suppose I can kind of see where that mindset comes from, however to that I would argue that if the Lord didn't intend for this pattern to continue then He would not have given Peter the position he held as the chief Apostle, nor would more Apostles been chosen to fill the vacancy created after the death of Judas Iscariot.  The pattern was meant to continue, however it did not and this was due to persecution of the Church and the difficulties in keeping many different groups of saints living "sound doctrine" without constant correction and reproof from the Apostles.  By 110AD (and that is being generous, it was probably much sooner) all of the Apostles were killed, except for John the Beloved.  I believe the last time he was heard of was around 79AD (though I could be off on that one).  However, after that date, there is silence as far as the Bible is concerned.  There are no new writings from the Apostles (not in the KJV Bible anyway) because they were all gone, and after a time no new Apostles were called to fill vacancies.  So, what of prophets and of revelation?  It ceased for a time.  Surely God still heard and answered the prayers of those who remained faithful, however, how long can a person and their posterity remain true to a belief when there are no leaders and when there are very few, if any, writings from those inspired men?  The Bible as you and I know it really did not exist for quite some time after the turn of the first century AD.  Even still, those who could manage to get writings would only have fragments.  After the Catholic church formed it was nearly impossible for common people to have access to the scriptures.  The holy writings were hoarded by so called priests who cared for wealth and power more than for the salvation of their congregations.  And this is where the interesting part comes.  

The Catholic church claims that they are the Church that Jesus set up while he was on the Earth.  They claim divine authority through the Apostle Peter.  They consider him their first Pope and they feel that each of their Popes since Peter have held the authority that was originally given to Peter.  While there are glaring holes in this way of thinking the Catholics at least hold a unique position as far as Christianity goes.  I'll refer you to the following account for a more eloquent explanation.  This is from Elder Orson F. Whitney of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles during a church conference in April, 1928.

Many years ago I had an interesting conversation with a man who was a member of the Roman Catholic church. He was a great scholar; he must have had a dozen languages at his tongue’s end, and seemed to know all about history, science, law, philosophy, and all the rest of it. We were frank and friendly with each other, and one day he said to me:

 “You ‘Mormons’ are all ignoramuses. You don’t even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other position tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Roman Catholic church. The issue is between ‘Mormonism’ and Catholicism. If you are right, we are wrong. If we are right, you are wrong, and that’s all there is to it. These Protestant sects haven’t a leg to stand on; for if we are right, we cut them off long ago, as apostates; and if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, for they were a part of us and came out of us. If we have the apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there was no need of Joseph Smith and ‘Mormonism;’ but if we have not that apostolic succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and ‘Mormonism’s position is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the Gospel from ancient times or the restoration of the Gospel in latter days.”

 “Doctor,” said I, “that is a very clear and concise statement, and I agree with it in almost every particular. But don’t deceive yourself with the notion that we ‘Mormons’ don’t know the strength of our own position. We know it better than you do. We know it better than any other people can know it. We haven’t all been to been college, we can’t all speak the dead languages, and we may be ignoramuses as you say; but we know we are right, and we know you are wrong.” I was just as frank with him as he had been with me.

From an objective point of view this is a very interesting, yet serious thing to think about.  If Catholics hold the rights and authority as passed down by Peter, then both Mormonism is wrong and every Protestant religion is wrong because we would all be apostate groups that broke off from the truth.  However, if Catholicism is wrong and never had the authority from Peter then the only other way for a Church to claim that authority is by way of a Prophet being called of God.  In either case (and this will be hard for you to hear) all Protestant churches do not hold the authority that was given to Peter, meaning all Protestant churches are false churches to one degree or another.  To be clear, that doesn't mean that everything they teach is wrong, but it does mean that they hold no right to the authority and divine revelation that Christ gave to his Apostles (and especially to Peter).  This means that they are not able to be God's authorized church on the earth.   

Now you may say what you will about Mormonism or about Joseph Smith or about our claim to revelation and divine authority, but you cannot deny that we hold a unique position in relation to the rest of Christianity.  Also, yes, we are Christians in one of the most strict senses I have ever known about.  

So, that is why a restoration was needed.  And if a restoration was not needed then we should all be Catholics.  It is as simple as that.  However, I know that a restoration was needed and I know that God has called prophets again in our day.  The divine authority has been restored to the earth by those who held it previously.  They have returned as resurrected beings with bodies of flesh and bones and have given that authority to God's chosen servants.  

Brian, I am certain that you are a good man and that you continually strive to serve God to the best of your ability.  I admire that and commend you for it.  Your dedication to God is admirable and you should continue forth in doing what you feel is the right thing to do.  I pray that you will be a good pastor to those who look to you for guidance and I hope you continue to grow.  I also hope that I have been able to adequately explain my position, and whether you agree with it or not, I hope that it at least makes sense to you.  If you have further questions I invite you to ask them.  However, I also hope that you will continue to ask God for guidance as well.  He loves us all, no matter what we believe and no matter what we may have done.  

Keep the faith brother,

Hal Waldram

PS  If you are one who is willing to read a lot, which I'm sure you are, then you may find the book Jesus The Christ by James E. Talmage to be very insightful.  I have read it many times and think that you would enjoy it.  I have never found a book that organizes the events of the Lord's life in the New Testament as well as that one.  Here is a link to it on Amazon if you are interested Jesus The Christ by James E. Talmage .  I think they even have a free Kindle edition.  

_______

After this message I never received a response.  I don't know what happened to the pastor.  I don't know if he even read my words or if he even cares to have an explanation at all of the need for a restoration, but it doesn't really matter.  I was able to bear my witness to him that Jesus is the Christ and that He has restored the fullness of the everlasting gospel in our days.  I was able to bear witness that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true church on the Earth.  I was able to bear testimony to him that God has called new prophets in our day, who received direct revelation from Him.  These things are what is important.  Winning arguments or defending your position is of little import however, especially when compared to being able to boldly declare the truth to someone in darkness.  I was able to boldly declare my witness, and whether the pastor believed it or not makes no difference.  I declared the truth and, despite how preposterous it may sound to some people, I know that time will vindicate me.  

Conversation With a Pastor (Part 6)

The next day I received another response from the pastor.  It was rather short, but it was sharp.  However, I was pleased to see that he would watch the video I sent him.  I think it clearly states our belief in Jesus Christ and God the Father better than I ever could.  
________

Hal,

Thanks for your answers and I will watch the video. I am not at all uncomfortable visiting the mormon site. I have researched the site on many occasions. I respect your beliefs. I enjoy open communication. I was a little put back by your calling my actions cowardly. Coward is a very strong word in our part of the country. However, I do forgive you for your behavior. I will never lead or encourage personal attacks on individual members of the mormon faith. Yet, I will continue to study and develop questions regarding comparisons between the "restored gospel" (your words, not mine) and historic Judeo-Christian doctrine. I teach on facets and variances that appear in many different belief systems. I believe it only fair to present the information and allow people to make up their minds about what to believe.

Just to clear up a few areas... I do not draw my income from The Church on Main. My resources come from the ownership of two local restaurants. I am not at all prideful about the membership numbers at our church. As a matter of fact we, The Church on Main, do not make church membership a huge priority. We prioritize following Jesus Christ and seeking to live life as He instructed. You still have not written what your personal doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ is. I would enjoy reading your theology regarding that. Also, I desire to know why the "Gospel" had to be restored, whom restored it, exactly when it was restored, and if the prophets of old messed it up what in the world would qualify a self-proclaimed modern prophet as the one or ones to "restore" it? Please, help me make sense of the senselessness that I perceive from your words. I welcome your reply.

Brian

________

The fact of the matter is that, despite his insisting that he allows people to make up their minds after "fairly" providing the information, he is very much against the Mormons, or was anyway.  He was not very fair in the things he said about us.  However, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt in hopes that he has changed for the better.  

The other thing I wish to comment on was the fact that he seemed to be defending himself against the things that were in my document.  He insisted that he receives no money from his church and he also kept attacking the words "restored gospel."  Now, even though I am the author/compiler of the document I sent him, I rely almost completely on Bible verses in the text.  His angst against the word "restoration" is not really about what I said but rather about what the Bible says.  If he has issues with the idea of restoration then he must have issues with the Bible, which teaches the idea over and over.

Regarding the money that his church brings in, despite his insistance that he receives none of it is beside the point.  He may not personally get money from his work in the church (which is commendable, if it is true) but there are other members of the clergy in his church that do receive payment for their services.  He has associate pastors and other members of the staff that get paid for what they do and that is against what the Bible teaches.  Even if he denies that any of them get any money now (which he hasn't, he only denied that he gets money) his church still brings in a lot of money that has to be going somewhere.  Many of his members (in 2006 anyway) said that they paid offerings to the church as "thank offerings" for the pastor.  I hope that it now goes to charitable things rather than into the pockets of the clergy.  

Another issue I have with what he said is "I will never lead or encourage personal attacks on individual members of the mormon faith."  I don't know if he was meaning that he won't do it again or if he meant that he has never done so.  I hope it was the former and not the latter, because the latter is a lie.  He didn't seem to respect my beliefs in the past, but I hope he now does, even if he disagrees with them.  

I sent him a response explaining why I had used the word "cowardly" and let him know that I hoped we had both matured some since our encounter in 2006.  I also apologized in hopes that my words would not create a chasm between our small, but growing, understanding with one another.  

________

Pastor Stewart,

I don't have a lot of time at the moment to write a full response, however I wanted to let you know why I used the word "cowardly."  The reason I felt I needed to use that word is because, from my perspective, my encounter with you appeared to be somewhat cowardly.  Let me explain.  We met in person after you had said some pretty bad things about Mormons on your radio program.  I was upset by those things yet I figured you would try and confirm the truth or error of what you said if you had the chance.  When we met in person you didn't make any such attempt, and in my eyes it seemed as though you were trying to avoid talking to us.  Granted we were both in a hurry and I could have simply misread the situation (I hope this is the case) since I was much younger than I am now. 

I hope that no harm has been done in this regard and I offer my apologies.  I think we have both matured since then.

I will write a response to the remainder of your inquiries this evening or tomorrow.  I feel as though I have given to you my personal beliefs about Jesus Christ, however I will be glad to go more in depth when I have sufficient time.  

Sincerely,

Hal 

________

My more complete response will follow in another post.  

Conversation With a Pastor (Part 5)

After having received his previous two messages I ended up writing a fairly lengthy one back.  
________
Pastor S,

I am glad to hear that you have grown as a follower of God in the last 
several years. That is always my hope for those who have faith in Jesus 
Christ. We must always press forward with a steadfast faith in Christ and 
keep his commandments in order that we may bless others and find true 
happiness.

I'm glad that you have looked over the document I sent you. For fairness 
sake I will tell you that I never liked the line "can ensure the salvation 
of its members" in my paper because that is not what I believe a church 
does. I believe salvation comes through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, 
however my experience in Mississippi was that many people believe that a 
particular faith (i.e. the Baptist Faith or the Pentecostal Faith) is what 
ensures their salvation. This document was not written specifically for you 
but rather to all who profess to believe the in the Bible.

Before I write any further I want you to know that one of the main reasons I 
decided to write to you at all is because I felt it was my duty to do so. 
See, while I served in the Columbia and Tylertown areas I had a 
responsibility to testify of Jesus Christ and of his restored gospel upon 
the earth. When I had occasion to meet you in person I was in a rush and 
was not able to speak to you at length. It has always bothered me that this 
was the case. Seeing how you are one of the great spiritual leaders of the 
area I was always bothered that I was not able to bear my testimony of Jesus 
Christ to you. I feel as though I short-changed both myself and you, and so 
I want to do so now.

I have a testimony of Jesus Christ and I know that he is the son of the 
everlasting God. I know that he came to the earth, that he suffered and 
died for my pains and sins and that he was resurrected. I know that he 
lives today. I know that he has revealed himself to prophets in our day and 
that he leads the work that I spent two years of my life teaching. If it 
were not for him then all life would be wasted. Without him we would never 
have the opportunity to repent and find forgiveness of our sins and without 
him there would be no resurrection from death. I owe all I have and all I 
am to him, and I love him with all my heart. He is my friend and he is my 
Savior.

I am saddened to see that you feel negatively about my faith, however I am 
not angry with you for it. I believe that all men and women have the right 
to believe in what they want to believe, and worship how they want to 
worship, and it is never right to force anyone into principles that they do 
not believe simply because we disagree with them. I did not write to you 
expecting that you would be converted to my faith or to make you believe 
exactly what I believe. That was not my goal. My intention was to let you 
know of my testimony of Jesus Christ, because I was never able to do so when 
I met you. I also wanted you to know that Mormons are not evil and that we 
do not seek to force our religion on anyone. We ask people to bring all the 
good and true principles that they have and then see if we can add to them. 
We never ask anyone to deny the truth they already have. To be fair, some 
of us are a bit overzealous and forceful at times, however you by your own 
admission know that people are not perfect. We are simply doing the best we 
have with the knowledge we have, and nobody should be faulted for being too 
faithful.

Since you were able to figure out which faith I belong to based solely on 
the Bible references I sent you, I am going to pass on expounding on the 
different topics you asked about at this time. My guess is you probably 
know what I believe. Honestly, the document I sent you answers all of your 
questions to some degree. After studying that, if you still have questions, 
I would be happy to answer them.

For now I will bid you farewell. I ask that you keep me in your prayers and 
I will also keep you in mine.

Sincerely,

Hal Waldram
________

I tried to be a civil as possibly but I did not want to answer every question he had (at least not in its entirety) because I was pretty sure he knew my beliefs and was simply looking for a way to get me to say something amiss.  I hope this wasn't the case, but I always work on the side of caution in cases like this.  

I also sent him the following video in the next message to him.  I sent him a YouTube link just in case he was worried about going to an official LDS website.  I figured this video would provide the LDS outlook on the nature of God the Father and Jesus Christ better than any way I could explain it.  Elder Holland has a profound way with words and speaks with the Spirit every time he speaks in a meeting.